I view it like how people still use polluting cars or throw away recyclables; it's a small enough impact they don't really care. Also, it's a small chance the Material Plane is affected at all, and if by 'chunks' it can also pull in empty space, there is an extremely low percentage that what mortals care about on the Material Plane gets affected.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
I rather liked the retcon once I saw the in-universe explanation. But yeah, I wasn't as happy with the stat change, especially since Charisma is much less of a key skill (it went from 'awesome for a bunch of classes' to 'need a bit if you're an envoy or solarion, and any you can spare if you want to be Captain')
A clumsy fly speed isn't exactly going to get a first-level character many places, at least not out of combat. Most characters will have at most a +0 modifier, and that's assuming 18 Dex and no ACP. Any damage and the character has a good chance of plummeting.
Kamakiri are meant to be a somewhat powerful race, but they are balanced out by what I call their wookie vocals. In fact, the version I saw was supposed to have Kamakiri and Common as starting languages. It may seem like an opportunity to minmax to some, but literally being unable to speak any language but your own is a very real disadvantage to players. It also means no language-dependant spells unless you can cast Tongues.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
See, that's an awesome explanation; expands on what came before, not throwing it away. Now I just wish the article had led off with that.
Archmage Variel wrote:
Doesn't that last one suggestion seem like exactly what starfinder did though? I mean it's conceivable that there was a gender revolution in which lashunta did chose not to fit a different societal role and their biology changed to reflect that. But starfinder lashunta may not even remember that.
Well, it doesn't say that, so I still find it a pointless (and therefore irritating) retcon.
Archmage Variel wrote:
If I had to, I would have made it clear that, especially in Lashunta society, sex=/=gender. Either that, or have it so there are the new subspecies, but they are/were hardwired to the sexes. Hell, maybe they went through a gender revolution after the Gap, and the classification is different.
Benjamin Medrano wrote:
From what I understand its less 'snooty' and more 'bitter this actually affects them personally'.
I'm not a fan of the Lashunta change, however. I'm not saying these new Lashunta aren't interesting as a playable race, but it just seems like a pointless retcon. I feel it could have been handled better than 'Cosmic retcon!'
I have been going through some of the races in an unpublished campaign setting, in an attempt to make them less... ARG-extruded. One of them, one that I was actually quite happy with, was the domestic gnoll, a smaller relative of the 'feral' gnoll (they are visually styled after African wild dogs) that, to escape persecution by their larger kin, fled en masse to the cities of the world. They 'domesticated' themselves, and take pride in their position as the best service available in urban areas.
In my latest run, I've been thinking of replacing two of their features, Lucky (same as the halfling ability, but if I keep it I was going to rename it Guarded) and Domesticated (renamed version of gnomes' Obsessive), and giving them a new form of Domesticated: the domestic gnoll chooses one of the following skills: Appraise, Craft, Heal, Handle Animal, Linguistics, Perform, or Profession. It becomes a class skill if it isn't already, and the domestic gnoll is treated as having skill ranks equal to their class level (so it's like Skilled for humans, but it's locked into one tertiary skill). Additionally, once they reach level 5 (and thus 5 ranks), they gain the skill's Skill Unlock.
The skill list was chosen for skills that would be the most... domestic. There is a similar race in the setting, the arctien, that was previously similar to the domestic gnoll (Dex/Wis, small), but much better. Automatically got Weapon Finesse, stealthy, initiative bonus. Since we started trying to differentiate these two more, I decided making the domestic gnoll to be a better at skills would be the best thing I could do.
Is it a bad idea for a racial feature to grant a skill unlock, even if it for a relatively harmless skill? Additionally, I had a feat in mind that was domestic gnoll-exclusive to expand on this, Domestic Dilettante. Basically, it allows a domestic gnoll that takes it to select another skill to have the same mechanics as Domesticsted (free ranks plus unlocks), plus the ability to retrain your skill ranks in the chosen skill for free. The big thing was that I was going to let it be taken for any skill, as the domestic gnoll's better version of Signature Skill. Any thoughts?
In my opinion, things are a little more balanced in favor of casters, but casters do have a lot more ways to winnow away their sanity. Spells (yes most of them are optional, but if I was running a game I'd find ways to make those spells very attractive), summoning stuff, etc. I just found out that our undead-blooded sorceress is going to be a bleeding sanity wound for our party... And hey, it makes Path of War characters more attractive (since generally having less than 14 in your initiating stat is counterintuitive), so it can't be all bad.
My only beef is that some creatures don't fit into the rules on sanity attacks. Gibbering mouther or aboleth? Yeah, sanity attack. Flumph or reefclaw (the latter of which is a popular dish)? Not seeing it. At least it's up to GM discretion; there's a setting I work on which has an aberration player race. They already have a bit of a self-esteem problem without their very appearance causing sanity attacks.
I liked it, even if it felt pretty condescending at times to people that actually like being related to a dragon. I'm all for different ways for bloodlines to come about, and indeed the ways mentioned in the post are very interesting, but no need to belittle people that like that stuff.
Hmm. That genealogist must be packing some serious levels or a wicked life insurance policy pissing off draconic sorcerers.
When jokes that I don't find amusing are made when I'm honestly reaching out for advice, I can get kind of peeved. And 'betray' wasn't exactly the word used, but a verb involving fecal matter isn't allowed on this forum. If I didn't make it clear, there are some strong feelings on this.
Thing is we are not playing on Golarion (or its solar system...) but have a shared setting. While this may seem to be an insignificant detail to differ between three people, whether or not an entire race effectively exists could be a problem.
While it's nice to be agreed with, unless I get a massive amount of people agreeing with me, I'd just be parroting my arguments from other sessions. Anyone have any specific rules proof or a link to a dev post? Because, as far as I can find, I can't find anything to refute their interpretation other than 'it doesn't say'.
I joined a group playing RotRL Anniversary Edition, and they sprung a couple rules I can't really find basis for anywhere. The biggest of which is that moving through allies in combat is considered difficult terrain. I've been playing Pathfinder for at least five years (PFS, mostly) and have NEVER seen this done before. The only basis I can think of is them misinterpreting rules for crowds...
The second one is that a diagonal counts as moving through all four squares (the one you are moving to, and the ones next to it). Never seen this rule, either, but the situation comes up less.
Is there any support for these? Or, even better, is there support that these interpretations of the rules are wrong? I would very much like to never have to worry about this again, it's a very frustrating thing to deal with in combat.
It occurs to me that if android souls are real and not artificial, would they qualify as cyborgs instead of androids. I'm reminded of the Major from Ghost in the Shell.
Well, they are specifically android souls. It wasn't put into them (except by presumably Pharasma), it just manifested.
Then again, it might have been a cosmic screwup on behalf of whoever is in charge of shepherding souls from the Postive Energy Plane.
"It looked like a humanoid, so I put a humanoid soul in it!"
"Well now we have to do it for ALL OF THEM!"
In one of my gaming groups (more Pathfinder-focused, the three of us developing a setting together), I seem to be alone in that I don't hate the implementation of androids. One constantly yearns for a more mechanical robot race and isn't a fan of their soul-having status, while the other despises that they have souls. He says it betrays decades of science fiction (to which I say Pathfinder isn't science fiction, but I digress), and has expressly forbid them from any of his games. Note that none of us are sticks-in-the-mud about technology and Pathfinder, we LOVE it, but they just plum hate androids.
I LIKE their almost-organic, soul-possessing implementation. Souls and how they work are admittedly something I am a fan of in Pathfinder, so it's not really a surprise (I also like the Shabti, a race I consider an almost magical equivalent). Is there anything people would suggest to sway their opinions?
Prince of Knives wrote:
I was going to use it in a setting I work on with others for a Vampire-ruled kingdom, which vampires of all varieties have flocked to. Moroi are the 'ruling class,' due to their numbers and spawn, and the vampire template in LotN are the enforcers and footsoldiers. A diluted bloodline they can create when making spawn.
There is a shield style, three feats that essentially grant you the good parts of a Tower Shield Fighter (nullifies the penalty, add shield to touch AC), with some other goodies (by the end you can set up the shield as an immediate action, and also provide total cover to an adjacent ally). It's called Mobile Bulwark style. It requires Shield Focus to get, though; you wouldn't be able to pick up the first feat until 3rd level if you're a human.
So, I'm a fan of the fantasy archetype of the armored mage, complete with sword and shield. Naturally I'm a fan of the magus, but I find the Skirnir archetype... lacking. I was mulling over options from the Armor Master's Handbook, and was looking at Shielded Mage; not incredibly useful for magus, not as much as Unhindering Shield, but a lot more fun in my opinion. If I want to play a shielded magus, I want an actual shield, not a metal dinner plate strapped to my forearm. I know the benefits are virtually the same, but still...
I was thinking, though, when looking at shields. A quickdraw shield, combined with the Quick Draw feat, can be donned or put away as a free action. Now, could a magus (or any other mage), when casting a spell, simply put the shield away before casting and put it on after casting? Well, that's not the question, of course it's possible to do that, but would they get the shield bonus back? If we follow the buckler's example, no... But bucklers remain on your arm as you're doing something else; from a more meta perspective, they use language specific to bucklers, and I don't see rules consituting what using a hand for limits you to in combat. Now I could go either way on this, but whichever way seems to have sway, it could still be useful to use this tactic, since you could pick up Shielded Mage to be be able to cast spells with a shield anyway, provided you don't need a free hand for something like Spell Combat or one of the Dex-to-damage feats.
Manly-man teapot wrote:
It's whenever you could take an attack. AoO, standard action, full attack, whenever. You're just changing how you deliver your touch spell.
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
It's a logical flow: Hypnotic Stare is a mind-affecting effect. Painful Stare only works on things that Hypnotic Stare is capable of effecting. Some things are immune to mind-affecting effects, ergo, Painful Stare doesn't work on them, as they aren't valid targets for Hypnotic Stare.
No, it doesn't! It says nowhere that painful stare only works on things that hypnotic stare is capable of affecting! Nowhere!
Occult Adventures wrote:
Hypnotic Stare (Su): A mesmerist can focus his stare on one creature within 30 feet as a swift action. That creature takes a –2 penalty on Will saving throws. This penalty changes to –3 at 8th level. A mesmerist can maintain his stare against only one opponent at a time; it remains in effect until the mesmerist stares at a new target, the opponent dies, the opponent moves farther than 30 feet away, or the mesmerist falls unconscious or dies. The mesmerist can remove the memory of his stare from the target's mind; the creature doesn't remember that it was affected (nor does it realize that it is currently being affected) unless the mesmerist allows it. The hypnotic stare is a psychic effect, and relies more on the mesmerist's focus than the target's perception of his stare. It can't be avoided in the same ways a gaze attack can. The mesmerist can use this ability even while blinded, but must succeed at a DC 20 concentration check to do so. Staring at a creature requires the mesmerist's focus, so if he uses a gaze attack or similar ability, he must target the subject of his hypnotic stare or voluntarily end the stare. The penalties from multiple mesmerists' stares don't stack, nor do they stack with penalties from witches' evil eye hexes. This is a mind-affecting effect.
Thing is, I don't see in there any language that says things about whether targets are valid or not.